CDZ Diversity, What's Important?

[MacTheKnife]

The fact is Jason Van Dyke was convicted in that case, the first police officer to be convicted of that kind of misconduct in 40 years. But there wouldn't have been so much controversy if the officer was black would there. And there wouldn't have been so much controversy if Rahm Emanuel had not sat on the video that was the primary evidence for so long. Chicago has the reputation of being one of the most corrupt cities in the nation with a lot of really ugly history in that regard as well as being among the most violent. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the mayor is black or white or in the case of Emanuel, dark skinned Jewish.

It took four years and a lot of effort to convict him, and as you say, he's the first guy in 40 years to be convicted of that kind of misconduct. Do you think he's the only cop in 40 years to engage in that kind of misconduct?

In any case, either white cops cannot be honest or honorable as much as black cops--and how racist is it to say THAT?--or intellectual honesty has to factor in that misbehavior of a white cop should not condemn all any more than misbehavior of a black cop should condemn all.

The fact is, all Jason's fellow WHITE cops all sat around and conspired to cover for him. You talk to any of his fellow cops, they STILL think he's a martyr. (One of my relatives is a friend of his... We don't talk anymore.) Maybe if they had to work alongside black cops, didn't go back to their suburban homes at night, they'd act more like a community police force and less like an occupying army.

While I understand that bad things happen--really terrible things happen--one case is not sufficient to condemn a whole group of people.

Again if this had been a black cop in the same situation, it would be touted by you and everybody else as racist to condemn all black cops for the misconduct of one or those on one police force. Does it not follow that to condemn all white copes for the misconduct of one or those on one police force is just as racist?

More racial diversity will do nothing to make a difference. Ferreting out the scum--trust me that there are scum in pretty much any occupation you want to name and it comes in all colors--and requiring professional and honorable conduct from the top down will make a difference.

Personally I think that to begin with the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people and it is difficult to ferret all of them out.

I do not like police types, I have never had a pleasant experience with a policeman.....they are arrogant and control freaks...dangerous to be around,trigger happy...stay far,far away from them...do not believe they are there to protect you or you may have a terrible experience if you depend on one of thiem...very dangerous people.

However all the crap about them going out hunting unarmed young black males is ridiculous....as in they kill more white folks than black and that is documented.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact is Jason Van Dyke was convicted in that case, the first police officer to be convicted of that kind of misconduct in 40 years. But there wouldn't have been so much controversy if the officer was black would there. And there wouldn't have been so much controversy if Rahm Emanuel had not sat on the video that was the primary evidence for so long. Chicago has the reputation of being one of the most corrupt cities in the nation with a lot of really ugly history in that regard as well as being among the most violent. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the mayor is black or white or in the case of Emanuel, dark skinned Jewish.

It took four years and a lot of effort to convict him, and as you say, he's the first guy in 40 years to be convicted of that kind of misconduct. Do you think he's the only cop in 40 years to engage in that kind of misconduct?

In any case, either white cops cannot be honest or honorable as much as black cops--and how racist is it to say THAT?--or intellectual honesty has to factor in that misbehavior of a white cop should not condemn all any more than misbehavior of a black cop should condemn all.

The fact is, all Jason's fellow WHITE cops all sat around and conspired to cover for him. You talk to any of his fellow cops, they STILL think he's a martyr. (One of my relatives is a friend of his... We don't talk anymore.) Maybe if they had to work alongside black cops, didn't go back to their suburban homes at night, they'd act more like a community police force and less like an occupying army.

While I understand that bad things happen--really terrible things happen--one case is not sufficient to condemn a whole group of people.

Again if this had been a black cop in the same situation, it would be touted by you and everybody else as racist to condemn all black cops for the misconduct of one or those on one police force. Does it not follow that to condemn all white copes for the misconduct of one or those on one police force is just as racist?

More racial diversity will do nothing to make a difference. Ferreting out the scum--trust me that there are scum in pretty much any occupation you want to name and it comes in all colors--and requiring professional and honorable conduct from the top down will make a difference.

Personally I think that to begin with the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people and it is difficult to ferret all of them out.

I do not like police types, I have never had a pleasant experience with a policeman.....they are arrogant and control freaks...dangerous to be around,trigger happy...stay far,far away from them...do not believe they are there to protect you or you may have a terrible experience if you depend on one of thiem...very dangerous people.

However all the crap about them going out hunting unarmed young black males is ridiculous....as in they kill more white folks than black and that is documented.

I can't agree that the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people any more than any profession. I have run across scumbags in pretty much all walks of life. In every profession, there are always going to be people who prey on others for various reasons, people who are bigoted or racist, dishonest, people who are unprofessional, people who are cruel and uncaring--borderline to full blown sociopathic et al.

I do know many police officers who are wonderful people. We have them as friends, as family, and in some cases associates.

We can agree that even though it could happen, the probability that anybody, police officer or not, is hunting unarmed young black males is so remote that it is ridiculous to make it any kind of issue.

 

[JoeB131]

The truth of the matter is that today a cop is more apt to shoot a white guy than a black because he knows if he shoots a black there will be all sorts of investigtions because blacks are a federally protected race....whereas some poor white guy has no one to look out for him...their families often too poor to even be able to get a lawyer.

Again, given what it took to put the few cops in prison for shooting black folks (Four years to finally convict Van Dyke even though they HAVE HIM ON TAPE DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS ACCUSED OF) or how often the DA's give cops a pass when shooting black kids (Mike Brown, Tamir Rice), I'm not sure they are all that worried.

I can't agree that the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people any more than any profession. I have run across scumbags in pretty much all walks of life. In every profession, there are always going to be people who prey on others for various reasons, people who are bigoted or racist, dishonest, people who are unprofessional, people who are cruel and uncaring--borderline to full blown sociopathic et al.

But here's the thing. Most other professions it's a lot easier to fire the bad apples and they don't run around carrying guns.

 

[DandyDonovan]

The truth of the matter is that today a cop is more apt to shoot a white guy than a black because he knows if he shoots a black there will be all sorts of investigtions because blacks are a federally protected race....whereas some poor white guy has no one to look out for him...their families often too poor to even be able to get a lawyer.

Again, given what it took to put the few cops in prison for shooting black folks (Four years to finally convict Van Dyke even though they HAVE HIM ON TAPE DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS ACCUSED OF) or how often the DA's give cops a pass when shooting black kids (Mike Brown, Tamir Rice), I'm not sure they are all that worried.

I can't agree that the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people any more than any profession. I have run across scumbags in pretty much all walks of life. In every profession, there are always going to be people who prey on others for various reasons, people who are bigoted or racist, dishonest, people who are unprofessional, people who are cruel and uncaring--borderline to full blown sociopathic et al.

But here's the thing. Most other professions it's a lot easier to fire the bad apples and they don't run around carrying guns.

Less than 3% of police involved shootings are even questionable. The fact that you and others pretend otherwise is just hilarious.

 

[JoeB131]

Less than 3% of police involved shootings are even questionable. The fact that you and others pretend otherwise is just hilarious.

Okay, let's grant that for a moment. Why aren't we doing something about the 3% that are questionable? Why does it take FOUR YEARS to convict a guy who shoots a kid 16 times when he's on the ground caught on VIDEO TAPE.

Here's the thing about "justified" shootings. The police shoot 900-1200 people a year, depending on your source, because no one is even bothering to keep accurate records.

In the UK, they've shot 54 people.. over the last 25 YEARS.

Hey little boy Mike brown attacked a cop who defended him self.

Defended himself from a kid who was 100 feet away with his hands up?

Tamir rice was a tragedy but not because of any racism. It was a legal shooting.

Guy, the Holocaust was "Legal". Slavery was "Legal". You need to understand the difference between "legal" and "justice".

Tamir Rice was a kid playing with a toy, shot by a loser who got fired from another PD for mental instability.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Less than 3% of police involved shootings are even questionable. The fact that you and others pretend otherwise is just hilarious.

Okay, let's grant that for a moment. Why aren't we doing something about the 3% that are questionable? Why does it take FOUR YEARS to convict a guy who shoots a kid 16 times when he's on the ground caught on VIDEO TAPE.

Here's the thing about "justified" shootings. The police shoot 900-1200 people a year, depending on your source, because no one is even bothering to keep accurate records.

In the UK, they've shot 54 people.. over the last 25 YEARS.

Hey little boy Mike brown attacked a cop who defended him self.

Defended himself from a kid who was 100 feet away with his hands up?

Tamir rice was a tragedy but not because of any racism. It was a legal shooting.

Guy, the Holocaust was "Legal". Slavery was "Legal". You need to understand the difference between "legal" and "justice".

Tamir Rice was a kid playing with a toy, shot by a loser who got fired from another PD for mental instability.

Less than 3% of police involved shootings are even questionable. The fact that you and others pretend otherwise is just hilarious.

Okay, let's grant that for a moment. Why aren't we doing something about the 3% that are questionable? Why does it take FOUR YEARS to convict a guy who shoots a kid 16 times when he's on the ground caught on VIDEO TAPE.

Here's the thing about "justified" shootings. The police shoot 900-1200 people a year, depending on your source, because no one is even bothering to keep accurate records.

In the UK, they've shot 54 people.. over the last 25 YEARS.

Hey little boy Mike brown attacked a cop who defended him self.

Defended himself from a kid who was 100 feet away with his hands up?

Tamir rice was a tragedy but not because of any racism. It was a legal shooting.

Guy, the Holocaust was "Legal". Slavery was "Legal". You need to understand the difference between "legal" and "justice".

Tamir Rice was a kid playing with a toy, shot by a loser who got fired from another PD for mental instability.

He was not 100 feet away with his hands up.

A toy can look lol the real thing many such toys do and no way to tell the difference.

 

[JoeB131]

No he was not and you are not a grown up.

He was charging Officer wilson in an aggressive manner after having made an attempt to grab wilsons gun.

Well, no. It doesn't show that at all. IN fact, here is an overhead view of the crime scene.

Please not the difference between the location of Wilson's Police car and the locaiton of Brown's body...

After he wrestled with Wilson, he ran away. then accorind to multiple witnesses, he put his hands up and Wilson shot him multiple times.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No he was not and you are not a grown up.

He was charging Officer wilson in an aggressive manner after having made an attempt to grab wilsons gun.

Well, no. It doesn't show that at all. IN fact, here is an overhead view of the crime scene.

Please not the difference between the location of Wilson's Police car and the locaiton of Brown's body...

After he wrestled with Wilson, he ran away. then accorind to multiple witnesses, he put his hands up and Wilson shot him multiple times.

Well actually yes the evidence proves you wrong.

You will notice those witnesses do not have names. You know why? Because they were simply random people dug up by the media and none of them had any credibility.

The physical evidence trumps those worthless witnesses and proves he was in a crouched position when he was shot and his hands were not up over his head. The two autopsies clearly showed that fact and proved Officer Wilson's account.

The picture of the crime scene is worthless as it proves nothing one way or the other

Brown's shooting was a justified act of self defense and that is proven truth.

 

[JoeB131]

Well actually yes the evidence proves you wrong.

You will notice those witnesses do not have names. You know why? Because they were simply random people dug up by the media and none of them had any credibility.

Um, no those are the numbers the police assigned to them to protect their identities.

The physical evidence trumps those worthless witnesses and proves he was in a crouched position when he was shot and his hands were not up over his head. The two autopsies clearly showed that fact and proved Officer Wilson's account.

All the autopies proved was that he was shot... not what position his body was in.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Well actually yes the evidence proves you wrong.

You will notice those witnesses do not have names. You know why? Because they were simply random people dug up by the media and none of them had any credibility.

Um, no those are the numbers the police assigned to them to protect their identities.

The physical evidence trumps those worthless witnesses and proves he was in a crouched position when he was shot and his hands were not up over his head. The two autopsies clearly showed that fact and proved Officer Wilson's account.

All the autopies proved was that he was shot... not what position his body was in.

Wrong and wrong they not identified because they were random people cited by the media.

Yes the autopsies did in fact show what position he was in.

 

[Foxfyre]

Less than 3% of police involved shootings are even questionable. The fact that you and others pretend otherwise is just hilarious.

Okay, let's grant that for a moment. Why aren't we doing something about the 3% that are questionable? Why does it take FOUR YEARS to convict a guy who shoots a kid 16 times when he's on the ground caught on VIDEO TAPE.

Here's the thing about "justified" shootings. The police shoot 900-1200 people a year, depending on your source, because no one is even bothering to keep accurate records.

In the UK, they've shot 54 people.. over the last 25 YEARS.

Hey little boy Mike brown attacked a cop who defended him self.

Defended himself from a kid who was 100 feet away with his hands up?

Tamir rice was a tragedy but not because of any racism. It was a legal shooting.

Guy, the Holocaust was "Legal". Slavery was "Legal". You need to understand the difference between "legal" and "justice".

Tamir Rice was a kid playing with a toy, shot by a loser who got fired from another PD for mental instability.

Why does it often one, two, three, more years to convict pretty much anybody charged with many crimes from embezzlement to assault/battery to rape to murder or pick pretty much any crime? When somebody waives the statutory timeline for a 'speedy trial', some can go on seemingly forever.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong and wrong they not identified because they were random people cited by the media.

Yes the autopsies did in fact show what position he was in.

Yes, it did.. 152 feet away from Wilson's police car...

Of course, it can't show if his hands were up or not, since they fell down when he died.

And, no once, again, those witnesses were given numbers by the police, not the press.

Why does it often one, two, three, more years to convict pretty much anybody charged with many crimes from embezzlement to assault/battery to rape to murder or pick pretty much any crime? When somebody waives the statutory timeline for a 'speedy trial', some can go on seemingly forever.

Do they have those crimes caught on tape, with no dispute as to what happened? Usually not.

The only people who can drag out a case for years are those who have the resources to do so. In this case, the corrupt FOP kept paying for sleazy lawyers to make one bs motion after another.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I don't think our problems lie in how much diversity we have, instead it's the intolerance for points of view or perspectives other than our own. Too often we look at other individuals or groups and ask why they have more than we do, and so we try to pull them down to our level one way or another. We denigrate them and they return the disfavor, and so the wars continue. Our problem is not that we're different, it's that we do not work harder to uplift our own group(s) instead of attacking the others. Or at least cooperating on policies that help everybody.

The most important thing to try to wrap our heads around whenever the term diversity comes up is that it is those who advocate for diversity who are the ones who constantly try to get other people to adopt a group mentality. And by encouraging people to adopt a group mentality, the proponents of diversity are actually the ones who perpetuate arbitrary victim status and who perpetuate the notion that Individuals should be seen as groups rather than as Individuals.

As far as policy, the role of government is not to placate collectivist group claims.

 

[Mac1958]

The most important thing to try to wrap our heads around whenever the term diversity comes up is that it is those who advocate for diversity who are the ones who constantly try to get other people to adopt a group mentality. And by encouraging people to adopt a group mentality, the proponents of diversity are actually the ones who perpetuate arbitrary victim status and who perpetuate the notion that Individuals should be seen as groups rather than as Individuals.

Bingo.

The (huge) mistake that the diversity advocates have made has been in so aggressively forcing the issue. Laws, regulations and cultural intimidation are artificial, man-made devices that force behavioral changes and run counter to fundamental human nature.

These people have completely ignored the entirely predictable negative effects of this strategy, i.e., the animosity, anger and social pushback it was sure to create. We saw the result of this pushback in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump. These people will deny this, of course, because doing so would be an admission their wrong-headed strategy backfired on them. At least for now.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Bingo.

The (huge) mistake that the diversity advocates have made has been in so aggressively forcing the issue. Laws, regulations and cultural intimidation are artificial, man-made devices that force behavioral changes and run counter to fundamental human nature.

That's right Mac, your Islamophobia is perfectly natural.

You keep telling yourself that, buddy.

These people have completely ignored the entirely predictable negative effects of this strategy, i.e., the animosity, anger and social pushback it was sure to create. We saw the result of this pushback in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump. These people will deny this, of course, because doing so would be an admission their wrong-headed strategy backfired on them. At least for now.

No, I'll deny it because that's not what happened at all.

Trump got the less of a percentage of the vote that Mitt Romney got. Whatever knuckle dragging clown the GOP put up was going to get 46% of the vote.

What happened in 2016 is the Democrats forced a candidate that even they didn't like. Then when they cheated to get her nominated, enough of the otherwise sensible people who voted for Obama twice decided they were going to waste their vote on a third party candidate.

Pompous asses who decided to show us all how "superior" they were.

Your argument WOULD make sense if Hillary were the kind of partisan you think has ruined the left the way it's ruined the right. But she wasn't. She was a weather vane who didn't have an opinion she didn't poll test first, and no one believed a word coming out of her mouth.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Wrong and wrong they not identified because they were random people cited by the media.

Yes the autopsies did in fact show what position he was in.

Yes, it did.. 152 feet away from Wilson's police car...

Of course, it can't show if his hands were up or not, since they fell down when he died.

And, no once, again, those witnesses were given numbers by the police, not the press.

Why does it often one, two, three, more years to convict pretty much anybody charged with many crimes from embezzlement to assault/battery to rape to murder or pick pretty much any crime? When somebody waives the statutory timeline for a 'speedy trial', some can go on seemingly forever.

Do they have those crimes caught on tape, with no dispute as to what happened? Usually not.

The only people who can drag out a case for years are those who have the resources to do so. In this case, the corrupt FOP kept paying for sleazy lawyers to make one bs motion after another.

Of course an autopsy CAN show if someone had their hands up when shot, especially if it's an upper body wound , by measuring angle of entry and such.

In fact, if I am remembering right, that is exactly the case with Michael Brown, because of where he was shot it was quite simple to measure the angles and say "it is impossible that he had his hands up when shot"

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong and wrong they not identified because they were random people cited by the media.

Yes the autopsies did in fact show what position he was in.

Yes, it did.. 152 feet away from Wilson's police car...

Of course, it can't show if his hands were up or not, since they fell down when he died.

And, no once, again, those witnesses were given numbers by the police, not the press.

Why does it often one, two, three, more years to convict pretty much anybody charged with many crimes from embezzlement to assault/battery to rape to murder or pick pretty much any crime? When somebody waives the statutory timeline for a 'speedy trial', some can go on seemingly forever.

Do they have those crimes caught on tape, with no dispute as to what happened? Usually not.

The only people who can drag out a case for years are those who have the resources to do so. In this case, the corrupt FOP kept paying for sleazy lawyers to make one bs motion after another.

Of course an autopsy CAN show if someone had their hands up when shot, especially if it's an upper body wound , by measuring angle of entry and such.

In fact, if I am remembering right, that is exactly the case with Michael Brown, because of where he was shot it was quite simple to measure the angles and say "it is impossible that he had his hands up when shot"

It also revealed a bullet entering the crown of mr browns head traveling down into his brain

Which would have happened only if his head were bowed as in running toward the shooter.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong and wrong they not identified because they were random people cited by the media.

Yes the autopsies did in fact show what position he was in.

Yes, it did.. 152 feet away from Wilson's police car...

Of course, it can't show if his hands were up or not, since they fell down when he died.

And, no once, again, those witnesses were given numbers by the police, not the press.

Why does it often one, two, three, more years to convict pretty much anybody charged with many crimes from embezzlement to assault/battery to rape to murder or pick pretty much any crime? When somebody waives the statutory timeline for a 'speedy trial', some can go on seemingly forever.

Do they have those crimes caught on tape, with no dispute as to what happened? Usually not.

The only people who can drag out a case for years are those who have the resources to do so. In this case, the corrupt FOP kept paying for sleazy lawyers to make one bs motion after another.

They were not police witnesses but random nobodies found by the left wing media and yes the autopsy can and does show brown was the aggressor,

The distance is irrelevant

 

[JoeB131]

Of course an autopsy CAN show if someone had their hands up when shot, especially if it's an upper body wound , by measuring angle of entry and such.

Not really. Yes, if your hands are straight up in the air, MAYBE that stretches the muscles, but if you have your hands up with your upper arms paralell to your shoulders and your forearms at right angles (which is how most people do it), not so much.

And this would maybe only explain the first shot. After you hit him with the first bullet, the other five will hit a body that no longer has hands up.

It also revealed a bullet entering the crown of mr browns head traveling down into his brain

Which would have happened only if his head were bowed as in running toward the shooter.

Or he bent over after clutching his torso after the first bullet hit him in the abdomen, which is more likely.

In fact, if I am remembering right, that is exactly the case with Michael Brown, because of where he was shot it was quite simple to measure the angles and say "it is impossible that he had his hands up when shot"

yup, that's certainly what the lying ass police that commited thousands of civil rights violations in that town said.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Of course an autopsy CAN show if someone had their hands up when shot, especially if it's an upper body wound , by measuring angle of entry and such.

Not really. Yes, if your hands are straight up in the air, MAYBE that stretches the muscles, but if you have your hands up with your upper arms paralell to your shoulders and your forearms at right angles (which is how most people do it), not so much.

And this would maybe only explain the first shot. After you hit him with the first bullet, the other five will hit a body that no longer has hands up.

It also revealed a bullet entering the crown of mr browns head traveling down into his brain

Which would have happened only if his head were bowed as in running toward the shooter.

Or he bent over after clutching his torso after the first bullet hit him in the abdomen, which is more likely.

In fact, if I am remembering right, that is exactly the case with Michael Brown, because of where he was shot it was quite simple to measure the angles and say "it is impossible that he had his hands up when shot"

yup, that's certainly what the lying ass police that committed thousands of civil rights violations in that town said.

He was not shot in thew abdomen.

The bullet wounds to his arms and hands were also consistent with a man running towards the shooter and no his hands would not drop after the first hit.